Health Net participates in both S-CHIP and Medicare in California. I don’t know if that’s what Curtis has, but I’m not inclined to pay attention on health care policy issues to someone who’s apparently never heard of S-CHIP.
And when a man gets pregnant, I support his right to choose. A man’s right to choose does not extend to a woman’s uterus.
In addition to Frank’s response…
I don’t understand your comment. Have you changed your mind about a mandate for responsible people with sufficient financial means to buy insurance? Because that’s what the individual mandate boils down to.
Irresponsible people with the means to buy insurance are permitted to pay a fine. It’s not like they’re going to jail.
What about on unanimous bipartisan consensus issues (ie recognizing Japanese war crimes of comfort women)?
If they’re wealthy enough they do not need to go to an emergency room unless they have a sudden heart attack or something.
According to NIV it is “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin…”
If people are wealthy enough to afford health insurance but don’t want it they should have the right not to have it. And the punishment doesn’t matter much-it sets a bad precedent.
It’s hardly “making a deal” on my part if I’m not compromising with them on anything or giving them anything in return for something else. Where’s the “deal” in that scenario?
Oh. Read and understood it wrong. Sorry.
They will continue to have a right not to have it. If they choose not to have it, they pay a tax fine. You may or may not like it, but the government already utilizes the tax code in all sorts of ways to encourage or discourage various behavior. So, there is no precedent being set: the practice has been in place for a long time now.
QUOTE=Curtis LeMay;12250337]If they’re wealthy enough they do not need to go to an emergency room unless they have a sudden heart attack or something.
[/QUOTE]
The simple fact that I can afford to purchase health insurance does not mean that I can afford to purchase health care. Checked out the cost of cancer treatment lately?
You’re basically having people buy a certain product like it or not.
The simple fact that I can afford to purchase health insurance does not mean that I can afford to purchase health care. Checked out the cost of cancer treatment lately?
[/QUOTE]
That should be factored in also obviously.
I have not read the entire thread so this may have already been offered by another poster. But since this is, at heart, a poll, I will give my answer.
I would not support a unilateral ban on abortion, but I would consider a unilateral ban on federal funding of abortions. Since it’s the funding that those religious conservatives object to, that should be plenty.
That’s precisely what governments are for. I “buy” a share of the public road network, even though I don’t have a car. I “buy” the services of our military, even though I think we spend way too much on it, and shouldn’t be in the wars we’re in. I like having government-funded schools and police forces, but even if I didn’t, I couldn’t opt out of those, either.
Ok. But that means that you must find it acceptable for insurance companies to deny coverage to the sick. (Equivalently, they can deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions). I’ll repeat my argument:
Now personally, I don’t have a problem with modern conservatives who refuse to follow Christ’s teachings. Some of my best friends are Republicans. But Jesus of Nazarath came to earth as a healer – for the benefit of all of humanity. Those standing against Him deserve not punishment, but clear identification.
Holy christ, is it comedy hour in Great Debates?
It’s incentivizing people towards purchasing a certain product, just as the tax code incentivizes people towards purchasing a house or away from purchasing cigarettes. There is nothing unique or new-fangled about what’s going on here. If you object to this particular use of the tax-code, that’s up to you, but it is not setting up any sort of precedent.
It’s a private product/service. A health care plan is for yourself but a road network applies to all so does the military, schools, and police.
If they wanted insurance before they developed such conditions or it was inborn but didn’t get it because they can’t afford it I support them being provided insurance but not does who were wealthy enough, didn’t buy health insurance, and developed conditions.
So that wouldn’t bother you as much if it were a government insurance program?
Sometimes i don’t get you conservatives. OK, most of the time. OK, never.
Do you have any idea what kind of bureaucratic nightmare this would create?
I meant private as in applying only to yourself and/or your family.
I don’t think so. First, because they object to abortion being allowed at all; so eliminating one type of funding won’t make them happy. And second, because the result will be women hurt or killed because they’ll take it as an excuse to harass and sue any hospital or clinic taking federal funding that takes care of women. They’ll accuse them of engaging abortion on the sly; any woman having a miscarriage will risk a fundie lawsuit accusing whatever institution was taking care of her of abortion. They’ve done that sort of thing before, with the “Mexico City Policy”.
So, the likely result will be that anyone with federal funding will try to find an excuse to not take care of pregnant women for any reason. Just like what happened with the Mexico City Policy.
Ultimately, the war on abortion is a war on women, and the anti-abortionists will always choose the strategy likely to cause the most harm to women regardless of whether it stops abortions. A classic example would be the ban of so-called “partial-birth abortions”, which didn’t actually forbid abortions at all. What it did do was forbid the safest method of late term abortion, forcing doctors to use more dangerous techniques - and that was the whole point for the anti-abortionists. Not to stop abortions, but to hurt women as much as they could get away with. That’s all the vast majority of them really care about.